So far my exploration of this book “Evolution, The Grand Experiment” by Dr. Carl Werner has revealed no science. It offers a very childish version of evolution, and it says that there are scientists who view evolution as false. It purports to be an honest representation of the facts, but there are no “anti-creationism” sentiments within the book. Not yet anyway. Will there be? We shall see!
Werner has made no attempt to be accurate. He simply mocks descriptions of evolution and attaches elementary school science help sites as its sources. He makes evolution out to be a trivial matter originated from complete idiocy.
I have a lot of hope for chapter four.
Chapter four talks about natural selection. It says that Charles Darwin explained natural selection in terms of the survival of the fittest. In other words, according to Werner, the strong animals will live and the weak will die. I have to admit, this is the simplest form of the concept that it’s ever going to get. The response by non-evolutionists, Werner says, is why are there still animals around for the strong animals to feed on?
Werner talks about artificial selection, but doesn’t call it that. He says if you took two mutts (no kidding, two mutts) and one has long hair and the other short, you can start breeding out the short haired mutt and create a long-haired dog over several generations. Werner explains, but the dog is still a dog.
Werner ends the section with, “Natural selection and artificial breeding may remove a trait that is already present; however these breeding processes never create new information in the DNA and never create new genes. They simply select for traits that are already present.”
Then he talks about artificial selection with plants and how you can’t grow a 900 pound tomato using artificial breeding or natural selection.
Werner boldly asks, “If natural selection and Darwin’s other mechanisms for evolution (the law of use and disuse) cannot create completely new traits, such as a fin or a gill or an eyeball, how then could evolution theoretically occur? What is the mechanism for evolution according to modern scientists who support evolution?”
Then Werner talks about Dr. Thomas Hunt Morgan stumbling on a fruit fly who’s genes triggered albino eyes.
Werner talks a little about how DNA is comprised of nucleotides that have been designated with the letters A, C, G, and T. He doesn’t go into the biology of genetic properties. He just gives a basic understanding (of course).
He says that the eye color issue in the fruit fly is a pathological variant, a genetic defect or disease of sorts. He says it’s no different than sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, spina bifida, or hemophilia. At this point, it’s becoming more obvious that Dr. Werner went to see Kent Hovind speak before he was thrown in Jail for tax evasion. He brought along a tape recorder and transposed one of his lame creationist diatribes into this book.
The next logical question that followed Dr. Morgan’s experiment was this: if disease traits come about by accidental or chance mutation in a singe letter of DNA, could new body systems also form this way? In other words, could new complicated and integrated body systems, such as fish’s gills (and associated structures), or a bird’s wings (feathers, bones and muscles), or a cardiovascular system (heart with blood vessels and lungs), come about through the accumulation of a series of accidental mutations? To form a complicated new body system would require adding or changing thousands of letters of DNA in the egg or sperm of the parent organism not just one letter. Moreover, these thousands of letters of DNA would not only have to be accidentally placed in the correct location, but also in the correct sequence.
To prove Werner’s point, he says, do this experiment. See how you can sit at a computer and type out your todo list. Well, get your three year old child, blind fold him, sit him at the keyboard, and have him type away. Will your child be able to type any thing that resembles a sentence let alone a word? No he can’t
DNA restructuring its letters to form new sequences in the right order is impossible. Proven. Not with science, but a completely not associated “test”.
We move on to a section on Adaptation.
Werner says (notice his verb choice): Adaptation implies that an animal was modified in a beneficial way, making it more capable of surviving the environment or reproducing at a greater rate.” Werner explains that adaptation has become a matter of semantics and is somewhat confusing to the non-scientist. Is it confusing? Really? Isn’t it the scientist’s job — take Werner for example who is a scientist who “understands” evolution better than creationism — to explain the terminology?
Werner says, “When a modern evolution scientist says an animal has ‘adapted,’ he or she actually means that accidental mutations have occurred resulting in an animal which is better suited for the environment. These changes fortuitously caused the animal to be stronger or better able to withstand the environment in which it lives, and the animal has accidentally become “adapted” to the environment” (italics original to text).
Take out the passively superfluous adjectives, and the description of adaptation — for being directed toward 10-year olds — isn’t a bad one.
But then Werner — in complete scientific fairness — adds the “public perception. “The public’s perception of adaptation is quite different,” Werner explains. Why is public perception necessary to supply the scientific information to the debate. That’s not science. If the public were all professional airline pilots, why would we need pilots? My perception of church pastors is that they lead their churches incorrectly, does that mean I have sway over his congregation or their view of Christianity? In what world does this kind of logic work? Allow me to go back to Werner’s statement. “Many incorrectly believe that when an animal “adapts,” the animal changed in response to the environment and has done so out of necessity, through purpose. Although the public’s perception of adaptation provides a more believable mechanism for evolution, it is incorrect and is very different from how a scientist uses the term. To be more accurate, the word “adaptation” should always be replaced with the words, “mutation and natural selection” or “fortuitous adaptation and natural selection.”
Let me let you read some more of Werner’s fair and honest scientific reportage. On page 39, the header reads, “Should the Word “Adaptation” Be Removed from our Vocabulary?” Here’s what Werner writes (italics original to text | emboldened is mine):
Modern scientists (including those quoted below) do not believe that an individual multicellular animal can directly adapt to the environment and pass these changes to the next generation. They know that this kind of adaptation is genetically impossible. Nonetheless, these modern spokesmen for the theory of evolution occasionally describe evolution in these terms – as a direct response to the environment. This is not the intent of these scientists, but over the years their occasional poor choice of words has led some of the general public into thinking that this is how evolution works. When described in these terms, evolution – by direct adaption to the environment — seems very believable, but it is not accurate.
The words that the scientists use, they know they are lies, but they use them anyway. They purposely mislead the general public, who should know that they are liars. This is fair and honest, right? The last line is so telling. And yet, it’s so fun to see how it’s regarded.
After that paragraph above, Werner gives six whole examples showing how a scientist makes a scientifically accurate statement, and then Werner follows each statement with a non-sequitur conclusion that happens to use scientific words, but not in the correct context.
Let me give you an example: “Example #5: In 1968, Harvard Anthropologist, Dr. David Pilbeam, wrote: ‘Tool using and tool-making have therefore been important catalysts in human evolution.’ His statement is genetically impossible. Using a tool or making a tool does not affect the DNA of the reproductive cells.”
Do you see what I mean? Yes, tool making did NOT affect reproductive cells. Making tools allowed humans to further themselves from their primate ancestors (who have also proven to use tools). But our tools led humanity to hunt, gather and prepare our food better. Preparing our food led to larger brain capacity, which over time lead to better use of language, etc. Wikipedia is a better read than Werner’s childish drivel.
WHALE EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE now with pictorial proof!
Then Werner wraps the chapter over several pages showing the impossibility of a hyena evolving into a whale. There are plenty of pictures of hyenas and whales montaged side by side. There are also chart and pictures of teeth, as well as a very helpful charts showing probabilities and the utter impossibilities of this evolution process ever happening.
Here are some iPhone shots so you can see what I’m saying.
For the record, the readers of this book still wouldn’t have a general grasp of evolution so how would they be required to agree or disagree with someone who is bashing evolution as the most impossible load of bullshit ever put on paper. But this is fair.
Chapter five still doesn’t show any issues with creationism. Its title is, “Similarities: A basic Proof of Evolution?” The picture shows a shark and a dolphin and it says, “A fish with fins” and “A mammal with fins”. The chapter promises to deal with the pitfalls of using similarities as proof for evolution.”
Where’s the line that says, “And a part of this will examine the pitfalls of creationism” ?
Or is this book not as fair and honest as it says it is? I tell you, the only reason I’m still reading this book is because I am determined to get Mark Tetzlaff to read an evolutionist book from cover to cover. If this fails, at least I can say I tried.